Is there anyway to make the Talk:Founding Agreement page a Talk page again? How is anyone supposed to know how to respond without messing up the structure? -- David Welbourn 10:41, 26 Jan 2005 (Central Standard Time)
Yes. I moved the main licensing parts to the Founding Agreement article and we can now discuss things here again. However, as things get bloated, I would still move comments to their own article and index them in the Founding Agreement article. In any case, Talk away! --David Cornelson 12:34, 26 Jan 2005 (Central Standard Time)
I do prefer the Public Domain 1 Proposal in principle. However, in the past, I've avoided copyright and copyright-like discussions, and thus I'm unclear on the implications involved. For example, will articles originally released as Public Domain stay in the public domain, even if used within another work that is not? Where does Fair Use fit into all this?
My second concern with this one is that it's, well, awkward. Letting every page have a different license sounds like it might be a potential nightmare of maintenance. Or maybe it's a non-issue?
My third concern is that this will introduce segregation into the IFWiki. Will we be happy with that? I guess this is sort of like discussing the House Rules before a game of Monopoly to minimize arguments later. (Except, of course, we started playing the game of IFWiki without any such discussions.)
I suppose I should also confess some confusion on my part as to how a wiki is related to copyright in the first place. There seems to be a general agreement that without any explicit declaration, the standard rules of copyright apply, but I'm not certain that can be taken as a given. Can the definitions of what the "work" is and who the author(s) are be made clear enough to apply to something like a wiki? I don't mean to be dense, but it does like trying to put a licensing restriction on all the different cloud formations over the city of Toronto. Or as that Portland link said, writing in the sand. -- David Welbourn 16:01, 26 Jan 2005 (Central Standard Time)
Excellent points. It's my understanding that without any declaration of rights, the wiki would be an undefined legal blackhole. It would also make the wiki admin libel if anyone decided to attack it. I think the PD1 Proposal removes any liability from the wiki administration places the burden of every single entry on the user. If you're adding Public Domain content, you are releasing your rights. If you edit something that is Public Domain, you are releasing your rights. If you add a licensed article, you are restricting others rights. But it all up front.
As for Fair Use, it is my understanding that references to copyright materials can be made as long as they are documented. So you can quote something and reference the quote with a footnote.
I think the vast majority of ifwiki will be Public Domain. Things like indexes of people or games, that's just factual information. I don't think we even want any indexes that are somehow a direct opinion of someone's (like Dave's Top 10 of 2005). I'm even reluctant to see reviews.
Where I do see licenses and copyrighted pages appearing is during the development of an article that would be easier if several people made efforts to tackle it. One person, possible the main editor, creates the initial article and an outline. Then people volunteer to tackles sections of the article and agree to whatever license is decided upon.
Although in this context, there's the possibility that a person or group could create the content, take it somewhere else, then delete it from ifwiki. I guess that's a risk, but there's no real solution to it.
I would _prefer_ all articles to be Public Domain, but I also want to foster great content, so I think we need to be flexible for those that want to develop and edit an article (and manage all the issues) and in return they get to set the copyright policy.
I think inherently people will gravitate to the most effective means of getting an article completed. This means that a byline copyrighter is likely to see almost no one edit their article. Well, someone of note would probably acquire a following and help would come because of who the main author is would have little to do with the content or the copyright.
Maintenance is simple. The ifwiki is not responsible for any content. If you write a public domain article and we lose it, too bad. If you write a licensed article and we lose it, too bad. The ifwiki is very simply a place where people can research interactive fiction. We may need to modify the licensing note on the edit page and add the textbox to allow for a readonly license, but we have a volunteer to help on that and it would be seemlessly built into the ifwiki. Of course I'll repeat...copyright owners are responsible for their own content. By placing it on ifwiki, they are giving rights to publish their works (on an ifwiki website or mirror) for as long as it remains on ifwiki.
I'm not suggesting the PD1 proposal is perfect and IANAL, but I think it covers a lot of what we care about.
--David Cornelson 21:47, 26 Jan 2005 (Central Standard Time)
Just for the record... a lot of people had put a lot of effort into the wiki that I started for the IF Theorybook. I changed jobs and lost the test server on which I had originally run the IF Glossary; the ownership of plover.net changed hands, and the resulting down-time pretty much killed traffic on the IF Glossary. I saw David C.'s suggestion as a great way to revitalize interest in the glossary. That glossary originally started with a list of about 12 terms that I had defined on my own website, but the list of terms rapidly exploded. Of course, a wiki is a great tool for publicizing breaking news and developing archives -- something that was beyond the scope of the glossary. My basic feeling is that if an individual author wants to keep control over an individual text, then he or she should post it on his or her own site, and add a link to it from this wiki.
--Dennis G. Jerz 03:14, 28 Jan 2005 (Eastern Standard Time)
I guess I'm not making my view of ifwiki clear enough. The ifwiki is simply a public publishing area. It is not a place that is legally responsible for any content. So although I encourage anyone and everyone to add content, I also highly recommend that if it's an article you've designated as copyrighted or that has a CC-type license, you save the content on your own computer as well as on ifwiki. We will do the best we can to maintain backups and uptime, but I want to set a precedent that clearly states, the ifwiki is simply a public publishing area. By entering content, you are giving publishing rights on the current ifwiki installation and any future ifwiki mirrors unless and until you ask for copyrighted materials to be removed.
So I agree with Dennis. If you have content that you've developed on your own and is relative to ifwiki content, feel free to link to it from within ifwiki. However, the other use of ifwiki is as a collaborative writing device. So I would also ask you to feel free to use ifwiki to develop content whether you copyright it or not.
Of course I'd prefer no one do anything that's not PD at the moment. Not until we get a bit more feedback on the upcoming changes to ifwiki to accomodate the PD1 proposal.
--David Cornelson 09:37, 28 Jan 2005 (Central Standard Time)
I myself agree that all stuff I write myself on this wiki to be public domain. (If you do add a mechanism to specify the license automatically, there should also be some way to specify the default per user account; so far I just specified this on my user page.) I would also prefer all articles public domain (and to abolish copyright entirely, actually, but that is beyond the scope of this wiki), but it is not for me to say what it is; that is your job. I can only say that all of the stuff I post shall be public domain, and that my suggestion is that anything else also to be public domain, too. --Zzo38 (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)